On Wed, 13 Dec 2023, Christian Brauner wrote: > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 08:46:54AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Dec 2023, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > > On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 at 16:35, Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > Other poeple have been finding ways to contribute to the technical > > > > discussion; just calling things "ugly and broken" does not. > > > > > > Kent, calm down please. We call things "ugly and broken" all the > > > time. That's just an opinion, you are free to argue it, and no need > > > to take it personally. > > > > But maybe we shouldn't. Maybe we should focus on saying what, exactly, > > is unpleasant to look at and way. Or what exactly causes poor > > funcationality. > > I said it's "ugly" and I doubted it's value. I didn't call it "broken". > And I've been supportive of the other parts. Yet everyone seems fine > with having this spiral out of control to the point where I'm being > called a dick. > > You hade a privat discussion on the bcachefs mailing list and it seems > you expected to show up here with a complete interface that we just all > pick up and merge even though this is a multi-year longstanding > argument. I thought I was still having that private discussion on the bcachefs mailing list. I didn't realise that fsdevel had been added. NeilBrown > > I've been supportive of both the subvol addition to statx and the > STATX_* flag to indicate a subvolume root. Yet somehow you're all > extremely focussed on me disliking this flag. > > > "ugly" and "broken" are not particularly useful words in a technical > > discussion. I understand people want to use them, but they really need > > to be backed up with details. It is details that matter. > > I did say that I don't see the value. And it's perfectly ok for you to > reiterate why it provides value. Your whole discussion has been private > on some other mailing list without the relevant maintainers Cced. >
